Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lekh Raj vs Hpseb & Others on 15 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
Lekh Raj versus HPSEB & others CWP No.720 of 2022 .
15.2.2022 Present: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Naresh Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate, vice Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents. CWP No.720 of 2022 Notice. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, under instructions of original counsel Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate appears, accepts notice and waives service on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and seeks time to file response to the petition. Be filed, as prayed, within four weeks.
Notice to private respondents No. 4 and 5 returnable on 1.4.2022, be issued on taking steps within three days. CMP No.1363 of 2022
Notice in aforesaid terms.
Grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as daily wager on 26.9.1984, whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 were appointed as daily wagers on 26.6.1985 and 12.1.1985, respectively but at the time of conferring work charge status benefit of work charge status was extended to respondents No. 4 and 5 on 3.2.1997 and 4.2.1997, i.e prior to petitioner as work charge status upon the petitioner was conferred on 15.2.1997. Further that at the time of regularization also respondents No. 4 and 5 were regularized on 25.5.2012 and 5.6.2012 respectively, whereas petitioner was regularized on 25.5.2012 despite the fact that he was senior to respondents No. 4 and 5.
::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2022 20:11:07 :::CIS It is further case of the petitioner that he had approached this Court alongwith others by filing CWP No. 5493 of 2010 for .
redressal of his grievance to correct their place in the seniority list in the Grade of Fitter (HM) and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 5.5.2015 directing respondents Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner within six weeks, but no decision was taken by the respondents authority till 17.9.2020 and even decision dated 17.9.2020 has also been taken after service of legal notice dated 10.5.2020 by the petitioner upon the respondents authority and now respondents authority is bent upon to promote respondents No. 4 and 5, who were and are junior to the petitioner, before him to the post of Fitter and, therefore, petitioner is constrained to file the petition.
In the aforesaid circumstances, prima facie case is made out for granting adÂinterim stay, therefore, in case any process has been initiated for promotion to the post of Fitter, the same may go on but it shall not be finalized without leave of the Court.
The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and concerned authority shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Vacation Judge February 15, 2022 (veena) ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2022 20:11:07 :::CIS